Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)

Meeting Was Conducted in Person and by Teleconference

March 2, 2023 1:00 p.m. EST

Board of Regents Room Julian M. Carroll Academic Services Building, 2nd Floor Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (Primary Physical Location)

MINUTES *****

The Board's Chair, Dr. Gerald Patton, called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m., and provided a statement regarding the re-initiation of the Presidential search process.

The Board's Secretary, Mr. Zachary Atwell, called the roll:

Regent Gerald Patton, PhD Present

Regent Herman Walston, EdD Present

Regent Michael Adams, Jr. Present

Regent Tammi Dukes Present

Regent Edward Fields Not Present

Regent Ernie Fletcher, MD Not Present

Regent Edward Hatchett, Esq. Present

Regent Jason Moseley Present

Regent Charles Moyer, PhD Present

Regent Robert Ramsey, Sr. Present

Regent Savion Briggs Present

During the roll call, at least six (6) Regents were present, thereby establishing a quorum.

MOTION by Regent Walston:

Move the Board of Regents to approve the agenda for the March 2, 2023, special called meeting of the Board of Regents.

Seconded by Regent Dukes and passed without dissent.

Chair Patton presented this agenda item, noting that the services of Myers McRae had been engaged to assist with the nationwide presidential candidate search process. Chair Patton then discussed the timeline for the search.

Regent Moseley inquired about the proposed timeline, noting that the on-campus visits are tentatively scheduled at a time when school is out. Regent Moseley stated that he did not think it was a good idea to bring a candidate onto campus when faculty, staff, students, and other constituent groups aren't present. Regent Walston concurred. Chair Patton proposed reaching out to Myers McRae about the possibility of adjusting the timeline to allow candidates to visit campus prior to finals week.

Regent Hatchett requested clarification about the HB 250 mandate as it relates to the presidential search timeline, specifically asking whether there was a deadline for concluding the search.

Regent Moseley queried whether HB 250 held any provisions that would prevent KSU from continuing with another interim president, thus allowing the Board to avoid rushing the search and increasing transparency. Chair Patton replied that a permanent president is crucially needed to stabilize the University, and extending interim periods is not what is expected under the HB 250 legislation.

Regent Dukes stressed the importance of the Board taking its time to find the best fit for the University.

Regent Ramsey asked whether the campus interviews could be moved up by a few weeks. Chair Patton said this is possible but would compress the time for getting a critical mass of qualified candidates. Regent Ramsey asked Regent Moseley what he thought of having finalists on campus prior to KSU's May 12 commencement.

Regent Briggs commented that it's imperative that the schedule be changed so students can meet the candidates, and agreed that the process should not be rushed if it precludes selecting a candidate that is a good fit.

Regent Briggs further agreed that having a series of interim presidents was not desirable.

Regent Walston observed that it was also important to have people on campus so candidates can determine whether or not they want to be at Kentucky State.

Regent Ramsey requested Board members to identify the deadline for conducting on-campus candidate interviews. Regent Walston suggested the last week of April. Regent Moseley agreed.

Regent Adams asked how long the Board would have to review candidate materials and narrow the pool to three finalists before conducting on-campus interviews.

Regent Moseley queried how much time is sufficient to properly market this position. Chair Patton responded that the search firm had indicated six weeks; however, KSU's time frame may actually be shorter because the campus brochure has already been developed [prior to HB 250].

Regent Moyer asked whether the search firm intended to keep the process as confidential as possible for as long as possible.

Regent Hatchett requested that Myers McRae be asked whether truncating our search process is good or bad for our search.

Chair Patton presented this Agenda item, noting that KSU is somewhat ahead in the process as the campus brochure was developed for the previous search before it was halted by HB 250. Now that the search has been reinstated, the brochure is being updated with new photos and other information, including the job description. Chair Patton asked Board members to suggest any changes or additions they would like to incorporate into the updated brochure.

Regarding the President's job description and preferred attributes, Board members suggested adding words and phrases such as "energetic, progressive, creative, entrepreneurial, interactive, relationship-building, student-focused, and being engaged on campus." It was also suggested that experience in HBCUs and legislative advocacy be incorporated into a new category, "preferred qualifications."

Chair Patton stated that he would provide these suggestions to the search agency.

Move the Board to approve the campus brochure and President's job description pending Board members' recommendations and modifications.

Seconded by Regent Moyer and passed without dissent.

Following the approval of the campus brochure as noted above, Regent Walston queried whether the Board could view the revised brochure upon completion.

Regent Hatchett asked whether HB 250 and related activities should be referenced in the brochure in the broadest of terms. Chair Patton agreed, replying that it would appear in a statement regarding the state of the University, as well as the presidential search website currently under construction.

Chair Patton presented this agenda item. Prior to the presentation, the Board's Secretary, Mr. Zachary Atwell, requested that the previous agenda item (5A) be voted on again to incorporate Regent Hatchett's suggestions regarding the inclusion of HB 250 mandates.

Agenda item 5A was voted on again and passed without dissent.

Chair Patton prefaced his remarks by sharing his background and experience involving governing Boards, higher education accrediting bodies, and prior college presidential searches and search committees. He further discussed how those experiences, coupled with subsequent research and consultation, shaped his perspective on KSU's current presidential search committee needs.

Chair Patton then opened the floor for discussion.

Regent Dukes asked why only two Board members are on the proposed search committee. Chair Patton replied that there is actually only one Board member and they are a non-voting committee.

member because that Board member will also be the person voting on the final candidate; therefore, in order to avoid "double voting," the Board member on the search committee is a non-voting member.

Regent Walston inquired whether Chair Patton had reviewed the previous presidential search committee structure prior to determining the composition of the proposed committee.

Regent Hatchett raised the question as to how other institutions, such as Morehead State University and the University of Louisville, are addressing the double vote idea. Chair Patton clarified the role and responsibilities of the search committee.

Regent Hatchett inquired whether Chair Patton was distinguishing the current presidential search from the interim search in which the entire Board was involved. Chair Patton replied that he was and distinguished the differences between the two presidential searches. Chair Patton clarified the duties of the currently proposed search committee, stating that the search committee would report to the Board, but the Board would have the ultimate authority and final say on the matter.

A robust discussion followed, regarding the number of Board members on the search committee and what their role and status would be in terms of voting or non-voting committee members.

Regent Briggs asked whether it was permissible to ask CPE's General Counsel, Mr. Travis Powell, for his legal perspective of having multiple Regents serve on both committees since he was present. Chair Patton denied the request, stating that the Board of Regents has its own legal counsel present to answer those questions.

Regent Walston requested that the Board move forward with the search committee composition as proposed, as the Board would make the ultimate determination in choosing the next President.

Regent Briggs asked that two individuals be included in each of the search committee categories, as was done in the last Presidential search. Chair Patton discussed the pros and cons of having two Board members on the committee.

Regent Moseley inquired why a Board member serving on the search committee would not have the ability to vote, even after fulfilling the extensive responsibilities and due diligence required of search committee members.

Regent Moseley also observed that as proposed, CPE would have representation on the committee but only as a non-voting member. Regent Dukes concurred with Regent Moseley's comments, remarking that CPE should have a voice in how the five semi-finalist candidates are selected.

A robust discussion followed pertaining to CPE's role on the search committee, during which Chair Patton requested that the status of CPE's role in the search committee as a voting member be tabled until additional information was gathered.

Ultimately, Chair Patton invited Mr. Travis Powell to address the Board to clarify CPE's involvement in the search process. Following Mr. Powell's remarks, Chair Patton asked Mr. Powell how he came to chair the previous search committee and whether he had been a voting member of that committee.

Regent Adams asked whether it was possible to make the search committee’s co-chair a voting member and whether the Board could select the committee co-chair in the event that multiple candidates are submitted for that specific position. Chair Patton established the process by which the search committee would be populated.

Move the Board to approve the Presidential Search Committee’s composition and charge as stated, with the caveat of CPE’s involvement on the search committee being tabled for the time being. Seconded by Regent Moyer and passed without dissent.

Chair Patton offered closing remarks, thanking everyone for their patience with this meeting.

MOTION by Regent Walston:

Move the Board to adjourn.

Seconded by Regent Adams and passed without dissent.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:47 p.m.

Submitted by:

Zachary Atwell, Board Secretary

Kentucky State University

Tammie Dukes Regent Tammi Dukes, Board Chair

Regent Tammi Dukes, Board Chair

Kentucky State University

Board of Regents Board of Regents

✓____ Approved with no corrections

___ Approved with corrections